Editorial by Ann Patty
For 34 years, I worked as an editor and publisher in New York publishing corporations. I was the youngest editor ever to be given her own imprint (Poseidon Press/Simon & Schuster), then went to Crown as Editorial Director, and finally to Harcourt as Executive Editor.
Ann Patty
At Harcourt I was a part time employee, publishing only five or six titles and year, resident in the office only a couple days a week. After meeting an excruciating end at Poseidon, then surviving cancer, I didn’t want to be a “player” anymore, wanted just to be a book editor. I was soon turning fifty and had seen many older editors put out to pasture, gently or brutally. I wanted to get to know the pasture too, part time.
For several years I had an idyllic editor/publishing house marriage with Harcourt. I was allowed to buy whatever I felt passionate about if the advance was less than six figures, and was included in every part of the publishing process. I published three debut bestsellers in as many years.
Gradually the company began to change. Expensive marketeers were hired; the word “product” was heard. Editors were no longer invited to Sales Conferences, indeed our titles were often presented by assistants in the marketing department. Catalogue copy and tip sheets were rewritten, often without our consultation. Once the marketing department changed the cover of a reader’s edition without telling me (or the author, needless to say).
I began contemplating going freelance. Though my position looked perfect from the outside, the hegemony of marketing was becoming more and more dispiriting and frustrating. The decision was made for me. During the meltdown after the overleveraged Houghton Mifflin bought Harcourt, I was fired.
There has been a flurry of thoughtful and true articles lately lamenting the devaluation of the editor. But enough lamentation! We all know the publishing industry of yore is long gone. What about the future? In the Internet free-for-all book editors may become more, rather than less important. The editor is the author’s interface with the world at large; the other roles in publishing houses, as they are now configured, may become obsolete in the digital future. Publishers may devalue editors, but writers and agents don’t. As business models change, it’s time that book editors reclaim their essential place in the publishing process, and be appropriately compensated for it. It’s heartening to see the proliferation of editor imprints at the large publishing houses. Why is there not an Editor’s Guild, like the Author’s Guild?
There are two sorts of editors: those who work with writers on manuscripts, who have no desire for management or publisher positions -– let’s call them book editors. Then there those who love the limelight, love being players, who aspire to being publishers — let’s call them publisher editors. Some of us have been both, simultaneously or sequentially. Book editors have rarely been fairly compensated by their companies. Low pay has been part of the ethos, profit participation rare to unheard of. It’s time to change that. Book editors should receive a royalty.
This composite, but real life example illustrates my point:
Book Editor discovers a first book with tantalizing possibilities, but clearly, it’s a mess. The novel it will become exists as much in Book Editor’s imagination as it exists on the page. She buys it for a nominal sum. She works many hours (mostly nights and weekends), over several drafts to coax out of Writer the best book it can be. She closely line edits the final draft. Then she goes into marketing mode, making sure the book is titled, positioned, packaged and presented properly. She makes an obsessive pest of herself, both in and out of house, in the service of the book. But in the end her and Writer’s long labors are rewarded! The novel becomes a major bestseller, launching a long career for Writer, bringing the company years of pure profit.
Three years later Book Editor is fired, with three month’s severance pay.
A book editor should participate in such a bonanza along with the publisher, agent and writer. When a book editor’s work is extensive (re-structuring, re-plotting, re-writing) and substantially contributes to the final book, a one or two or three percent royalty is not too much to ask. If a book editor is on staff at a company, such a royalty should begin only after the advance has earned out, or after some number of copies which insure the company’s target profitability have sold.
Many agents now use freelancers such as myself to perfect a manuscript or a proposal before it is sent to a publishing house. It’s nearly impossible for an editor to get promising but not ready-to-publish projects past “editorial boards,” comprised mostly of sales and marketing folks. (Sales and marketing folks don’t think like editors, even though editors must have marketing mojo to be successful.) And when a company has bought a title on the basis of a proposal (probably co-written by a freelance editor) the manuscript that arrives needing major work is, more often than not, farmed out to a freelance editor.
As a freelancer, I miss the worldly, bookish, hurly burly (and the expense accounts!) of NYC publishing. But I love being able to focus on the work of helping a writer produce a potentially important or lucrative (or both!) book. I can arrive at an agreement with the writer without an intermediary. I don’t have to jump management/marketing/sales/moneymen hurdles to get to my work.
I wonder if there will still be book editors at major publishing houses in five to ten years, or if all extensive editing be done by freelancers. Will freelancers team up with agents? Or will we team up with author’s who become internet publishers of their own work? Perhaps we’ll simply go on as we do now, anonymously serving the cause of good reading and good writing. The pasture is greening.
At Harcourt, Ann Patty’s bestsellers were Jenna Blum’s Those Who Save Us, Emma Donoghue’s Slammerkin, Michel Faber’s The Crimson Petal and the White, Yann Martel’s Life of Pi, and Abigail Thomas’ A Three Dog Life. Her website is www.annpatty.com
DISCUSS: Do book editors deserve a cut of the profits?
31 Comments
It seems to me that the problem with all this — and much of your post — is that it relies on the infinite plasticity of the term ‘editor’. What you are describing here is nothing short of the writer’s own status, where an ‘editor’ assumes the role of co-author (or, even more brazenly, the status of ‘real’ author) for the purposes of producing a salable work. But this prompts a slew of questions.
If you really are critical to the process, and you really are capable of ‘imagining’ a novel, why are you purchasing bungled works from others and not writing your own? Isn’t that the status you claim here — to be as good or better at writing a novel than the ‘author’ you are editing?
If you don’t want to be an author (by title, or because you’re no good with a blank page), then why not become a publisher or agent and earn you cut of future receipts that way? Why stick with the title of ‘editor’ and insist that this new category of indispensable collaborators needs a piece of the action?
Who is to determine which type of editor qualifies for a percentage? Who is to determine whether any percentage-editor in any instance actually earned their cut? How long will it take before percentage-editors are not only taking a cut, but putting their names on the books — either alongside, or in the place of, the original authors?
I’m sorry that you feel as if you’ve been exploited. I’m not sure that the correct solution is to legitimize the exploitation of someone else. (What you are describing here is rampant in Hollywood and the music industry, where producers take shared credit for their ‘work’ — which, over time, becomes little or no actual work, and instead a fee paid for access to the industry.)
To see the kind of damage all this does, I now read your bio –
– as a list of books that you yourself wrote, re-wrote or otherwise saved from the incompetent authors whom you also credit. But is that right? Is that what you intended? Were all of these books horribly disfigured when you found them, only to be reshaped into bestsellers by you? Is that what you mean the credited authors of these works to think? If not, how do you prevent it?
Again, I think you have the talent to write a bestseller yourself — indeed you’re clearly claiming as much — so I’m left to wonder why you’re not doing that. The path is clearly there, the door is open, and you’ve got plenty of connections in the industry that most authors would die for. What’s holding you back?
For more: http://www.ditchwalk.com/2010/01/20/the-infallible-editor/
errata: In the above post, the first paragraph was posted with
I agree with Ann Patty that book editors should get a share of the profits. I work in a market–in India–where the scenario that Ann describes of a book editor coaxing a book out of a mess is ALMOST an everyday occurrence. I work freelance, because I find that publishing companies in India, some of which are family-owned and run, don’t value good editors. Foreign companies tend to take fresh graduates, who are cheaper, and train them, rather than taking on someone who is experienced but might be “expensive”. As for family-run firms, they are unprofessional–I recall once having to rewrite a VERY badly written MS, where no one had a clue where the story was headed. We spend a lot of time checking grammar and facts, rewriting where required and asking the right questions of the author to get a finished book as a final product. I think there should be an Editor’s Guild–at least there will be a professional standard against which our work can be judged.
In thirty years of selling as a commissioned representative, one of the strongest handles I could use was “This was edited by___________.” When properly used, that line was shorthand for what type of reviews could be expected, what readers would likely by piqued, this one is tailor-made for your store, and other such codes. Alas, in those thirty years I encountered perhaps five editors I could use for fiction, and Ann Patty was either number one or number two. Her argument makes a great deal of sense to me except for those formula writers whose books arrive with lots of white space on each page, a predictable death count, and very little substance to fill out a promising story line. That kind of writer usually brooks no editing anyway. Thanks for a very good proposal, Ann.
Given that right now, the only way Zumaya CAN pay freelance editors is via royalties, if any of y’all are interested in joining my database, let me know.
I can guarantee you’ll get to do as much for any book you carry to publication as you want.
This is a really interesting article. I work in the animation industry and now as I’ve been going through the publication process, I’ve been intrigued by the differences. I’ve sometimes wondered if publishing won’t go the way of the movie industry–meaning, the publishers are the “producers”, and hire groups of story people to write the book. There’s no name on the book, just the title. (I think a couple of publishers already do this.)
So, YES, I do think that editors should receive percentages of the book–they are part of the story team!
Wow. A lot to stir things up here. I’m a writer and an editor. I love the line about the necessity of editors, but giving them royalties?
I’m also a playwright; the theater has dealt with this question for years … and answered it:
Should directors take a royalty on plays they’ve developed? No! Should actors get a piece of the summer stock royalty for roles they initiated? No! Should playwrights take a royalty on the salary of every actor who gets a job after receiving exposure in the playwright’s play? No. Should the playwright get a piece of the director’s subsequent TV job because he honed his chops on the playwrights work? No. Should an editor who advances at a publishing company or develops a great freelance business pay a royalty to his/her first bestselling writer? Of course not. So why on earth should an editor get a piece of a writer’s property?
Why does everybody assume they are entitled to take from writers? Even the question is demeaning. An editor or a dramaturg or a director has a job. These jobs should be fairly compensated. But a writer owns his/her words — even if they have been “developed” or rewritten by somebody else. Once again, this question is disrespecting what a writer does. A writer gives birth.
In Hollywood, there’s an old joke about a stupid actress who thought she could get to the top by sleeping with somebody, and she was so stupid she slept with the writer. It’s funny because it’s true. Writers are always squashed to the bottom of hierarchies. Enough. As an editor, I do work-for-hire. I work hard and I believe I should be well paid. As a writer, I give birth. I sit alone in a room for no compensation creating something from my heart. When it’s born, I’m happy to have a good editor to work-for-hire to help it into the world. But it’s MY baby.
Thanks, Ann. Couldn’t agree with you more. If the way forward is quality projects (and I think it is) many things in the landscape can change, but the role of the editor will remain critical.
In fact, I do see a time where the landscape will allow editors to become mini publishers, with a recognizable POV. Like a tall tree falling in the forest so that seeds may bloom on the floor, the current breakdown of our industry model has the potential to free up a lot of creativity.
In some ways, a return to editors as primary figures is a throwback to the very early days of publishing (as early as the mid-late 1600′s in Europe) when the “publisher as editor” began to collect stables of promising authors under one roof, and a growth in readership meant that Authors were finally being recognized and compensated significantly for their work.
It was at this time that Publishers as “curators” really played a role in literary development by understanding the public taste and developing projects that satisfied both the public demand as well as their own POV as a publishing house.
This was before before we had the development of all the heavy layers like agents, acquisitions committees, marketing, sales, and distribution that now stand between an author and the public. Those layers all developed for specific reasons…but it may be the case that evolutionarily, we are moving on.
What you are seeing with freelance editors now acting like prep-school coaches indicates to me that the primary creative process is migrating out of the mainstream model which I take as another sign of a system imploding.
So keep going. Great, creative folks in this industry will continue to make the work while the big trees fall, and on the other side we may see a meadow full of beautiful things.
This is a toughie.
I do agree with Ms. Patty about editors being more important in the digital future.
Should they get a cut of royalties? No.
The current profit obsessed state of the industry has put more and more burdens on writers. Agents and editors now want near perfect manuscripts, which by definition means that editors have less work to do on the manuscripts.
In the digital future, writers who are unable to write that near perfect manuscript and who can afford freelance editors will use them. Other writers won’t. The side benefit of the industry chasing quick hits is that it has forced writers to be better and more prepared (hopefully).
I’m with Betsy and Mark here. Writers are already at the bottom of the food chain in the status quo. Squeezing another few percentage points of would be murder.
http://www.penswithcojones.com
I admire some of the authors Ann Patty has championed, especially Patrick McGrath, and agree that many editors in publishing are underpaid.
But this post seems to imply, misleadingly, that no editors get royalties. It’s my understanding that royalties for editors, though rare, do exist, particularly for those who have their own imprints. I know an editor at an imprint who got royalties even after leaving the firm for books the editor acquired there.
Could Ann Patty clarify her point: Is she saying that no editors get royalties and that this practice should begin? Or that some editors get royalties and this practice should be extended to others? Thanks for any help you can give.
first, mark barrett, who wrote the initial posted comment, seems like an ass. and based on his comments appears to have a much different axe to grind than the topic of current discussion. take it easy, guy! she didn’t yell out “Your Mama!” at the end of the article. try not to be so easily offended. if anything, your attitude is what’s offensive.
second, i’m a theatre/film artist (actor, producer, one time screenwriter) and a musician (writer, recording artist, producer). i think its a fair question to ask if book editors (who i often equate to record producers in terms of their service to the ‘work’) should or could get a small percentage of a the sales of a book. no one is claiming ‘ownership’ of someone else work. does that not mean they should be compensated? i don’t know the definitive answer to that.
i do know that the Screen Actors Guild sure as hell better make sure i receive royalties for the use of my work in any movie or television appearance i’ve ever made. i know very well that i didn’t write those scenes i portrayed on camera. i also know that someone else could have easily been cast to do that role instead of me. however, i will instantly punch anyone in the mouth who claims i didn’t breathe and bleed my own artistry into anything i’ve ever acted in. and when a film or show becomes successful partially of the back of my work, i fully expect to be compensated for that work if it keeps bringing in money. ‘nough said. should not a book editor as well.
next, as a songwriter, i have enough humility to know that certain songs i’ve recorded that have done well in the public sphere would not have had as much success were it not for the producer who worked on it at the time. should they be compensated for the success of ‘my work’ if it continues to produce revenue? my answer is, why the hell not! no one, especially the producer, will claim they wrote a song i penned (or it’s knuckle-sandwich time). but we both know that their work may have been essential to the success of the song (if not also, the creation of it).
in the end, like betsy robinson eloquently stated, it’s about ‘the work’ (though she was starting to sound a bit mark barrett-ish at times. careful there, betsy). i think its fair for an editor to ask if they should receive some sort of extra based on a books success. what that is and/or if it will be, is yet to be determined. all i know is some books and (yes betsy, plays too) wouldn’t make it past ‘GO’ if not for the work of a collaborator. stop being so selfish with your art work. you made it to be consumed by the public…did you not? and if someone else creative work helped to get it that way, lets have the conversation. thats all i’m saying.
discuss amongst yourselves. except you, mark. your like that kid who never learned to share and probably didn’t get invited to many birthday parties. HA!
p.o.
Royalties are not a reward for contribution to a book, but rather a reward for risks taken by investing in a book before compensation.
Authors make a large upfront risk against the slim potential to earn a reward. The author invests time and effort not just before compensation, but before even the offer of compensation. The vast majority of books will never see any return on an investment, because the majority of written books are never published. For the sake of argument, let’s make a very large assumption and say that 1 out of every 100 books that are finished end up being published. They’ll either not find an agent, or the agent will not be able to place them. This means that chance for return that any author faces is 1%, or, to look at the converse, 99% of all books are written without compensation.
Of that small subset of books that are written and are acquired by a publisher, the vast majority will never earn out. Numbers vary from publisher to publisher, but I’ve seen rates running from 60% to 95% percent. This means that most authors will never see a royalty from their books, and are forced to survive on advances.
The common number quoted is that 3% of published authors are able to earn a living solely from writing. That’s 3% of the original 1%. Extrapolating that further, out of every 10,000 people who write a book this year, 3 people will find a career as a writer.
Statistically speaking, an author has a far greater chance of earning money at the roulette table than they do in the publishing industry. Betting on a color has only a 47% chance of success, while returning a 1:1 investment. Betting on a single number has a 2.63% chance of returning at 35:1. But only 0.03% of writers will become professional authors.
Publishing houses, likewise, make a risk when they acquire a book. Unlike writers, who begin in the theoretical negative, publishers start by making an actual capital investment, and continue to spend money, thus laying claim to the both the plurality of net returns, but also irst rights to revenue.
Editors, on the other hand, do not take risks beyond those associated with any other occupation. Yes, an editor can choose a good or bad book, and yes, the “book editors” mentioned above can have a large impact on the success or failure of a book – pushing the needle on whether an author earns out. However, the reward an editor receives comes in the shape of a salary. If an editor wishes to receive a royalty on a book, she needs to increase the risks they take in the process – such as forgoing most or all of her salary. In such a situation, the editor would have the same drive that the publisher house and author do to make a book successful – to recover from a financial negative.
When an editor approaches a book from the same financial negative, and thus with the same risk and same motive for reward, than I think it only fair for an editor to be compensated in kind. However, when an editor is asking for further financial reward without acquiring greater risk, royalties are not warranted.
That editors are often under-appreciated and under-compensated, I’ll heartily concur. But fixing that with royalties, at least in the case of staff editors, seems like a troublesome solution. Benefits of staff vs. spec aside, would not such a system have a devastating affect on income disparity and resultant motivation and morale amongst editors? Absolutely, editors can locate and polish diamonds in the rough, but turning manuscripts into blockbusters is a process full of intangibles that largely fall outside of editorial control. Would it not be preferable for editors to have more equity in the publisher as a whole so that those windfalls can be shared (since the risk is being distributed throughout the organization) rather than every individual shooting for the blockbuster payoff?
If editors are freelance and taking on some of the responsibilities of agent/publisher/marketer, on spec as opposed to a for-hire rate, then absolutely they deserve a chance at a bigger payoff. That said, I’d much rather see smaller, nimbler publishing models with editors taking more equity and responsibility than editors becoming another free-agent step to negotiate between writers and the old publishing behemoths.
While overthinking my short post, Bradly beat me to the punch with a knockout. Yes, what you said.
Ditto to Bradley and Jeremy. As an editor, I will only work for fees. I do not work on spec. The only rationale I could ever see for an editor collecting royalties is if he/she takes on a project on spec, with the promise of royalties after the sale. Agents work on spec. Writers work on spec. We receive royalties. If editors are willing to give up their salaries or fees, sure, negotiate a royalty and wait for it like the other parties.
Thanks for the interesting feedback.
First let me make clear the titles listed on my bio were not those used in my example. I was not intending to imply I “rescued” any of them.
I agree with alot that is said here. I was hoping to stir up such a discussion, knowing that editors at houses are unlikely to get percentages. And the point about shared risk is an important one. I know it’s not unheard of for house editors to get percentages; it’s common when one works freelance for a house. I believe some imprint publishers may now get percentages; I was never smart enough to ask for that.
I do believe that the complaint that “editors no longer edit” and the truth of that in the the corpo publishing world can partially be explained by the fact that the editor now finds it hard to put in that sort of time, care and effort, knowing she will not be fairly compensated in a bonanaza situation. Not only that, it no longer even assures her continued employment.
What i’m finding freelance, however, is that sometimes the amount of time needed on a promising manuscript makes an editor’s standard fees prohibitive. I like working on what I want to work on, and can give a better price if I have a chance to earn a percentage or two on the back end. It also gives me incentive to stick with it and do my best work. I ask for a percentage only if my work is beyond what I consider editing — in other words, if I help make up plots, create new characters, completely restructe a non-fiction work or do more than two intensive edits and alot of rewriting of prose.
The percentage option is also important because there are some talented people out there who can’t afford a true professional editor. We need to work with the less affluent as well as the more, and the only way that makes sense for a freelancer is a piece of the action when (if) the book sells. None of us are getting rich working as freelancers.
PS:And thanks Janice: loved your post and you made me laugh
I enjoyed this article. Book publishing is going through dramatic change. The conglomerate publishers no longer do the work they once did to add value to the books (less editing, less marketing, less sales, less coop, etc) but continue to want the same or larger share of the profits.
The world is changing where I envision free-lance and work-for-hire to be the norm across all functions of publishing. I personally know of 25-30 very talented free-lance editors that are contributing to the success of hundreds of authors.
It isn’t taking away from the author’s cut in my opinion, but from the publisher’s cut. The publisher does less, they should make less.
We need editors.
Being a Palestinian writer and poet and an Israeli citizen I can’t indulge in talking about those matters because I have been trying to get an agent or an editor to represent my novel for more than a year without any success although I have sent thousands of queries. the few who have actually answered are not interested in such a novel though I believe that with a little trust in my talent and belief in my cause my novel can be a bestseller. I know I sound arrogant but that’s the sheer truth. Nobody wants to have anything to do with a Palestinian author whom he might believe to be a terrorist though I’m the greatest peace loving person on earth.
My own personal experience as a writer is that the editors input into the novel (and yes I am talking professional publishing) has been less than 5% in all 3 cases to date. So I would resist to the end an editor trying to gouge their own cut out of my work because I don’t regard them as having contributed to the intellectual property in any significant way at all. And although I know many editors are incredibly dedicated, I think the point made above that they have the opportunbity to negotiate a salary, bonuses etc as fair remuneration for their work is a good one. But if editors wish to swap their salaries for royalties dependent on the success of the book then good luck to them, but the royalties should come out of the publisher’s share of the profits, since they are employed (via whatever system of remuneration) at the publisher’s behest
I agree with the point that one should ask for a cut of royalties when working on spec, if only because most authors are unwilling or unable to pay the going rate for editing upfront.
Ann’s question, however, assumes that royalties are due based on the subsequent market value of a work, as indicated by her later remark that “the editor now finds it hard to put in that sort of time, care and effort, knowing she will not be fairly compensated in a bonanza situation.” To me, that indicates a certain author-centered idealism about the nature of publishing, as if the goal is to rack up a few hits in order to guarantee a lifetime income, thus leaving one free to stew in one’s creative juices full time.
Unfortunately for editors, the current form of the authorial myth just doesn’t routinely include them. If you want to participate in that game, I say just do it the way all the rest do, and produce something that you can legally claim as your own. Otherwise, accept the fact that your job is to anonymously improve someone else’s work on a fee basis, just like every graphic designer, set player, makeup artist, athletic trainer, and pit mechanic in the world.
And, if I may add my own note of recalcitrance, I was chafing a bit at Ann’s definitions of Book Editor and Publishing Editor. I don’t know anything about her work, but in eleven years in the industry, I have rarely met an “editor” who actually got her hands dirty with the text. It seems to usually be a matter of temperament, but surprisingly often it seems that the person with the title of Editor is literally incompetent at dealing with mechanics. Of course, as a line editor, the only texts I see are either unedited or come from crappy editors.
What a wonderfully insightful piece. Writers most definitely do value editors now more than ever, and you are absolutely right to identify the increasingly freelance nature of the publishing industry that we will see in years to come, as writers and their representatives seek to exerciose control over those tasks traditionally performed in house by publishers.
as a self-publishing writer, and part of a collective (Year Zero Writers) dedicated to producing the very best contemporay fiction free from the constraints of commerciality, I, like increasing numbers of writers who see a future outside the traditional industry as a first choice and not a last resort, am absolutely dependent on being able to find the very best designers and editors to work. An increase in the numbers of first rate editors offering their services on a freelance basis means that at last we can compete on quality with auhors who have a publisher.
What an absolute horse’s ass this Mark Barrett sounds.
“Isn’t that the status you claim here — to be as good or better at writing a novel than the ‘author’ you are editing?” Er, no. She doesn’t do that, anywhere.
“I now read your bio – [snip] – as a list of books that you yourself wrote, re-wrote or otherwise saved from the incompetent authors whom you also credit.” OK, Mark, since we are wilfully misreading simple English I will now read your bio as an exegesis on your adventures in romancing barnyard animals.
“Again, I think you have the talent to write a bestseller yourself — indeed you’re clearly claiming as much — so I’m left to wonder why you’re not doing that.” Well, she’s not claiming that, is she? You pompous, mean-spirited horse’s ass.
Anyway, I enjoyed the article.
As a young editor at a mid-sized to large publisher, I agree with parts of this proposal and disagree with others. I’ve had a few successful books that not only earned out advances but paid decent royalties. It would be nice for me to share in that success, especially since the editor is really the only hands-on person not receiving anything extra (author, agent, and publisher all get paid more when a book does well). I do work fairly intensively and put a lot of time into my books (granted, some don’t need as much as others). I line edit, I cut, I ask the author to add and change, but I don’t rewrite. It’s not my place to change an author’s work on such a fundamental level. If I thought the writing needed that much help, I wouldn’t have acquired the book in the first place. And that, Bradley, is the risk that we take; we put our reputations on the line every time we present a book to editorial board, every time we buy the rights, and every time we publish a book. I don’t think a lot of people are aware of how much other stuff we do for a book beyond what’s on the page. The editor is the hub of everything at the publisher, and our vision/approval of cover art and copy goes just as far toward the success of a book as the material. And don’t forget how we often brainstorm with authors to develop an idea into a story that could carry a complete book, giving us an intellectual stake in some projects as well.
On the other hand, I wouldn’t want to be fully financially reliant on book sales. There are so many other factors that are out of an editor’s control. We could pour ourselves into multiple drafts of a book, but if the bookstore buyers aren’t willing to take a chance on it and only order 500 copies, it’s doomed from the start, no matter how good it is. Let’s face it: the buyers don’t read any portion of most of the books they buy and base their orders on everything BUT the quality of the book. Then there’s often the obstacle of woefully small marketing and co-op budgets to overcome, which is completely outside the realm of an editor’s control.
Bottom line? I’d love to share in a book’s success, but I don’t want to be blamed for its failure if the book is as good as it can be. If the book sucks, I’ll take responsibility–but none of the books I’ve acquired suck. Maybe as a freelance editor, one can afford to rely on a percentage of profits, but I’m not sure that’s the most rewarding path to take, either.
P.S. Any royalty compensation to an editor should absolutely NOT come from the author’s cut; their royalty rate is already low enough. But a 3-5% bonus from the publisher would be a pretty nice show of appreciation.
“I don’t think a lot of people are aware of how much other stuff we do for a book beyond what’s on the page. The editor is the hub of everything at the publisher, and our vision/approval of cover art and copy goes just as far toward the success of a book as the material. And don’t forget how we often brainstorm with authors to develop an idea into a story that could carry a complete book, giving us an intellectual stake in some projects as well.”
I don’t think a lot of book editors are aware of how pretentious and supercilious they sound to the vast numbers of anonymous grunts working in the publishing industry. Your self-righteous preening gets thrown in my face whenever I tell someone outside of publishing about my job. I have to point out that I am not “that kind of editor”; rather, I am the kind of editor who corrects all your mistakes and ill-conceived interventions.
Interesting discussion – thanks, Ann. I have been editing books for almost l0 years and initially wouldn’t even charge because I just enjoyed working on a potentially good manuscript and enthusiastic writer who wanted to get published. Obviously this wasn’t the route to go as it took vast amounts of my work time and eventually I set up a company where, along with a team of editors, I work with authors and usually on first manuscripts. My take?
Wonderfully critical job since we have to let the work retain the author’s voice and vision and I’m constantly walking a tightrope – editing the manuscript to ensure all elements notch up to be eminently readable, interesting and publisher-ready while allowing the story, words and voice to be original and certainly not mine. I wonder how a Mark Barrett can ever understand this.
In my experience very few writers are willing to pay well (or pay at all) for this. I still believe however that royalties may not be the way to go – there are too many creative ownership complexities tied in here as we see in the discussion so far, and while as editor I offer a much-needed skill and service, I didn’t create the work – it sprung from the author. (The whole business about what and how much a writer allows you to suggest / change and then is upset by his / her own restraints is yet another discussion for another time).
Perhaps if publishers are more exacting in receiving submissions and want manuscripts that are well-edited by the author or by an editor, writers may be willing to pay better for a good editor. Also, perhaps publishers should be ready to pay good editors outside their own organizational capacity if they think a manuscript has potential.
I don’t have an answer. I just know that many more people are writing books – some of them with great stories and slants – and not all have good editing skills or sometimes, essential techniques that could make a difference between a finished manuscript and an exciting manuscript. I think a lot of them recognize this and contact editors and are ready to pay for the value their work receives. Is it enough? Not yet for the editors, I guess.
I’m a writer who occasionally edits freelance. It;s different to mentoring, or manuscript evaluation because you absolutely have to come up with a finished product. Process/learning is not the point. I’m very aware of the responsibility (to both publisher and writer) involved, and also of the use of my best gift, my creative judgement, to further another writer’s book.
Some books just need a tweak, others need much more. I think that one way or another, this works should be well rewarded.
Apologies for typos! I don’t do copy editing…
Elizabeth Gilbert has an interesting Ted talk on who actually “owns” the creative genius of a work, how this adds pressure and plight to writers. “Owns” is used more in the philosophical sense here but could inform some of our beliefs in this thread, and could certainly inform how we choose to do business: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/elizabeth_gilbert_on_genius.html
jbb
I am curious about the interpretation of someone being there own publisher to eliminate the unecessary overhead.
I believe that a certain amount of grammar and punctuation should be learned by any writer, enough so that an editor would change nothing, but changing whole parts of a book an author has slaved for take the very life of the book out of it. I would spend the rest of my days think ‘I didn’t write that.’ If they can write newspapers so that a 4 year old can understand them them no one should touch or change anything in one of my books and if it is true, that I must put up with someone changing whole paragraphs or even chapters just to make the book a best seller then I want to know a few things.
1. How do we know that the changes made by an editor are actually the reason behind the books status? After all, no one will ever read (the other version). So just because some spiffy big time book house hires you as editor you become the by all end all of someone making it to the top?
2. I challenge any current editor who can show me current credentials to take a book I have created and make it into a book that I will receive a 6 figure income from. Do that and I will gladly give up 5% of all profits including 5% of the first six figures.
Sadly I do not expect anyone to take on the challenge, so, I like many other writers will save what money we have and self publish the books we write as they were meant to be, raw, and from our hearts. Writers are changing no longer thinking you can do better than they can. I believe, as editors begin to fade away riding into the sunset, people will become accustomed to publishing in the raw and really would never notice the difference anyway.
9 Trackbacks
[...] Ann’s editorial and let us know what you think in the comments or via Twitter using hashtag [...]
[...] Ann Patty has an intriguing essay up on Publishing Perspectives this morning, wherein she wonders out loud whether book editors [...]
[...] industry is changing for everyone. As the models shift, should we make room for book editors to receive royalties on their work? Sure. Why should only one person be potentially-making-money-on-my-books-but-not-really? There has [...]
[...] guest editorial on the subject of whether editors should receive royalties for their work (read it here on Publishing Perspectives) is causing a quiet stir, but a stir [...]
[...] an editor, and even I don’t think we should get book royalties. [...]
[...] Should editors get royalties? [...]
[...] editor – writer relationship has always been one of conflict. Some editors want a share of author royalties for their work (a terrible idea), some say editors are the reason writers need traditional [...]
[...] involved. We (writers) are grateful for the rare insight into the arcane rituals of the industry or we are outraged by it. The second way usually ends in a tea-party-rally of wild alternatives, rampant [...]
[...] don’t know about this one: ‘The Future for Book Editors: Royalties?’ In this article, Ann Patty (former Harcourt publisher from NYC) argues that editors should receive [...]